ArticleNeotropical entomology2026
DNA Recovery from Forensically Relevant Blow Fly Larvae (Insecta, Diptera, Calliphoridae) Kept in Different Preservative Solutions.
Article in Neotropical entomology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Gene flow, kinship, and source population assignment in Chrysomya blow flies.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There are still many gaps in knowledge about how different preservative solutions can guarantee sufficient DNA recovery for the taxonomic determination of flies of forensic importance. In the present study, we evaluated the recovery and amplification rates of mitochondrial DNA from larvae of the forensically important blow fly Chrysomya megacephala (F.) (Diptera, Calliphoridae), preserved for up to 47 days in the solutions commonly used in routine forensic investigations. Some larvae (N = 88) were immediately placed in the preservative solution, while another group of larvae (N = 88) was killed by immersion in water heated up to 80 °C for 30 s before being preserved at room temperature. In general, it was possible to recover highly pure DNA from larvae subjected to almost all treatments, with yields varying proportionally across different storage intervals. Among the solutions that yielded the highest DNA and consequently achieved successful amplification rates were 99.3% ethanol (> 100 ng/µL, with rates of 95%) and 70% ethanol (20-100 ng/µL, with rates of 90%), primarily up to the 28-day storage interval. The worst DNA yields and low amplification rates (approximately 50%) were associated with the 47-day storage interval, despite the preservative method used, except for Kahle's solution, which presents no amplification at all. Our results suggest that ethanol at concentrations of 70-99.3% is the most efficient preservative for preserving the integrity and usability of forensically important larvae DNA for diagnostic purposes, particularly within a range of up to 28 days.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.